Grade Barack Obama's Presidency So Far

Foreign policy: D+
Domestic policy: C+

Time will tell whether the diluted "financial reform" bill will have any effect. I based my domestic grade on (a) finally passing some kind of health care bill (b) failing to find the right balance between telling Congress what he wants done and letting them get the credit (c) unadventurous SCOTUS nominees (d) terrible Cabinet and sub-Cabinet choices

The real surprise? I'd no idea his foreign policy would be a retread of Bush's. Failing to support FISA as a candidate only hinted at it.

http://images.clipartof.com/small/71457-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Happy-Red-Haired-School-Boy-Holding-An-A-Plus-Graded-Paper.jpg

That's silly re. foreign policy. Bush started two wars, & left the messes to Obama. Yet you only leave two grades between Bush & Obama. So either you think Bush's warmongering was better than Obama's attempts to deal with the bequeathed status quo, or you think Bush's warmongering is equal to or only a little worse than Obama's work. Either way, that's silly.

I'm gonna go with solid B-minuses across the board. if only because he is definitely "above average" imho (this is due to the average president being stupefyingly horrible)

That's silly re. foreign policy. Bush started two wars, & left the messes to Obama.

oh c'mon -- where've you been the last two years? From targeting American citizens for death and continuing the Afghan war without end to allowing renditions, the guy's foreign policy is a fucking nightmare.

Plz point to one significant, world-historic foreign policy achievement in which Obama has distinguished himself from Bush.

i can tell this is going to be an important thread

I've been somewhere where starting the Iraq war is a disaster that isn't just marginally worse than what you're talking about.

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Interpol thread.

xpost

this would be better as a poll because then dudes could all loudly proclaim their F's and A+'s for like six days and then when the results came in and 99% of voters gave him something in the B range we could all just move on with our lives

the guy's foreign policy is a fucking nightmare

it's kind of always going to be, too

idk what i'd grade him, but short of the infant-politics of the isolationists, there aren't easy ways to end a war

I've been somewhere where starting the Iraq war is a disaster that isn't just marginally worse than what you're talking about.

How 'bout "not ending the Iraq war" and "expanding the Afghan one"?

i give him a an A... for ALLAH

^^^^ eighth pillar of Islam

Those are bad, but it's silly to think that they're more or less the same in quality as starting the two wars, especially the Iraq war.

xp

um how did he "not end the Iraq war"...?

Euler OTM anyway, I'll let him handle it

also Alfred where does Gitmo fall on your list

foreign policy: C
domestic: B-

We have 50,000 troops still in Iraq. Several died this week. The war isn't over.

B minus

Shakey, isn't Gitmo still open and still holding prisoners?

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Interpol thread.

xpost

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:45 PM

<3 <3

haha shakey has been telling us that obama's gotten us out of iraq for like six months now, don't wake him up

xp shakey gitmo is still open, hello

Plz point to one significant, world-historic foreign policy achievement in which Obama has distinguished himself from Bush.

Obama backing climate change policy at Copenhagen. That's huge. (and, once again, foiled by the Senate. thx douchebags!)

I'd put promising (and trying really hard despite ridiculous domestic opposition) to close Gitmo up there as well. Withdrawing troops from Iraq is definitely significant and not something that would have happened under McCain.

I'm sure there's others, this is just off the top of my head.

He made a nice speech in Egypt about Islam and the US.

xp

Shakey, isn't Gitmo still open and still holding prisoners?

so glad yr blaming Obama for this, get one clue

haha shakey has been telling us that obama's gotten us out of iraq for like six months now, don't wake him up

more like why don't you tell me what you mean by "war in Iraq" cuz dude there isn't one anymore in case you haven't noticed

We have 50,000 troops still in Iraq. Several died this week. The war isn't over.

those aren't combat troops. this line of argument is so disingenuous and you know it. Are we still at war in Korea too? What about Germany?

Still doing rendition is pretty close to Bush-era stuff for my liking, folks.

I'll concede that point and I don't like it either.

it's kind of retarded to say he hasn't ended the iraq war -- or, at least, you sort of have to acknowledge that the US had hecka forces in the region (kuwait, the skies above iraq), covering iraq/imposing the brutal yoke of US imperialism pre-2003.

not "blaming" Obama but giving him credit for promising to do something he has failed to accomplish so far is lame. Or Bush gets credit for landing us on Mars. Also, there's Bagram to answer for

Korea, Germany, and Japan had the remnants of a civil society after the war. Iraq has nothing.

Glad to see much of the rolling US politics thread will be re-aired in here.

can we blame Obama for 9/11?

Well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&ref=world

Germany, and Japan had the remnants of a civil society after the war. Iraq has nothing.

this is kind of amazingly stupid, but also -- all the more reason to pull out, huh.

i cant come up with one since i dont know what kind of grading system radical indonesian madrasahs use

I'm not going to grade his presidency so far very high on either count---probably C on both counts, maybe C- for foreign policy---but the ridiculous costs of starting a stupid war (& another unwise one) shouldn't be equated with rendition or failing to withdraw all troops from Bush's wars.

there's a bunch of different sets of things going on here tho

things he promised to do, and is doing, that i don't really see the wisdom in: wind down iraq nice and slow, ramp up in afghanistan

things he promised to do that he failed to do, i assume by losing fights with the 'intelligence community', or just because he straight up backed out and reversed himself: torture prosecution, transparency, military tribunals

things he promised to do but failed because of his own party: gitmo, cap & trade, card check, immigration reform

things that have been done but in about the most back-assward way, mostly because of the senate GOP: everything else

things that desperately need doing, usually can't for some of the above stupid reasons, and nobody cares, inexplicably: staffing the upper reaches of the federal bureaucracy (esp the federal reserve) & judiciary

things that desperately need doing but nobody will ever do: criminal justice reform, end of the drug war.

mayne, do you have anything else to do but scatter crumbs of realpolitik in political threads?

xpost

I'm gonna go with solid B-minuses across the board. if only because he is definitely "above average" imho

― Dr. Lol Evans (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 September 2010 22:41 (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

this, more or less

dismayed by his lack of realpolitik or any attempt to srsly reorient mid-east policy, but you wouldn't expect [hypothetical generic president] to do that either....

goole OTM

those aren't combat troops. this line of argument is so disingenuous and you know it. Are we still at war in Korea too? What about Germany?

― Dr. Lol Evans (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 September 2010 22:55 (4 minutes ago)

comparing cologne to falujah is pretty disingenuous too

madame secretary has by all accounts been great.

shhh! history mayne says Fallujah needs help.

xpost

madame secretary has by all accounts been great.

so has Madame Speaker.

mr. majority leader too, under the circumstances. i can't imagine trying to work with those motherfuckers on anything

Worth a read. McClathchy publications have been outstanding.

Korea, Germany, and Japan had the remnants of a civil society after the war. Iraq has nothing.

lol so wait the definition of ending a war is the creation of a stable civil society? which Obama was supposed to do in 2 years, following the withdrawal of combat troops? In a country that has NEVER HAD a civil society? wtf

mayne, do you have anything else to do but scatter crumbs of realpolitik in political threads?

xpost

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:01 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

im kind of interested in hearing how germany in 1945 had so much going for it

I think that even without a cap and trade bill, Obama's acknowledging climate change and making it a priority and committing the US to working with the int'l community to fight it is a) huge in terms of its impact on international politics and b) completely 180 degree turn from Dubya

xp

or, really, what 'civil society' was like in 1930s germany, while you're on

things that desperately need doing but nobody will ever do: criminal justice reform, end of the drug war.

― goole, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 23:00 (3 minutes ago)

has obama ever spoken at length abt this? could criminal justice reform be a pursued in a 2nd obama term?

what would christgau grade?

http://www.robertchristgau.com/icon/x2.gif

shhh! history mayne says Fallujah needs help.

no, not at all. fuck it, prolly better leave 'em to it.

omg buzz is xgau

buzza, rather

xp
well, at least the crack/coke sentencing disparity has been somewhat redressed; seems to be marginal improvement on medical marijuana. Though I don't really think Obama is leading on these issues, they would have been tougher under Bush

or, really, what 'civil society' was like in 1930s germany, while you're on

The kaiser was not Saddam Hussein.

I'm talking pre Weimar, of course.

um Obama basically told the DEA to back off prosecuting medical marijuana, which is a pretty big change from Dubya. this is a minor issue but it's one I think he's been good on. Weed's gonna be legal in CA come November, and I doubt Obama's gonna do any finger wagging about it.

honestly i grade obama like a b-/c+, the american people a d+, inside the beltway pundit etc types get an d-, the founding fathers an F for the senate

A- for The Federalist though.

re: crim justice: there's been some changes in crack sentencing, and sen. webb keeps pushing for a commission on incarceration. dunno what O has said about any of it, if anything.

re: foreign policy -- u know there are more countries in the world than israel, iran, iraq and afghanistan. this administration has been free of the needless petty shit-stirring with other countries over nothing, and hasn't sent a dude who would detonate the UN building given the chance to be our ambassador there. little things, i guess.

the international coordination through the g-20 during the credit crisis was also very well handled, at times personally by Obama, i understand.

xps

kind of with Max here

I'd say more but I'm too busy boggling at Sandra Lee

i really wonder how much of their own post-partisan healer-uniter bullshit they really believed. it seemed obvious to me even in the primaries that if he was president we would be living in a constant hurricane of racialized craziness, and hey look here we are.

i could look back at the 08 politics threads but i feel like i made myself see this coming...

'those aren't combat troops. this line of argument is so disingenuous and you know it.'

I think the disingenuous argument is that troops who get in firefights on a daily basis aren't "combat troops."

shakey didn't we shut you up about this "well are still at war in GERMANY lolz" nonsense like three weeks ago? tell me, are we still killing people and being killed in germany?

& yes bravo to obama for promising to close gitmo. meanwhile, it hasn't happened and it wouldn't matter a lick if it was closed and you know it - he's still holding people without charge in gitmo and other prisons around the world, and blocking litigation by people who were tortured by invoking sprawling bushesque state secrets bullshit - he hasn't actually followed up that big talk by you know, taking principled strides toward changing policy in this area, which is what the whole outcry about guantanamo was about, if you recall

one million xposts

Japan had the remnants of a civil society after the war. Iraq has nothing.

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:56 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

By "remnants of civil society" you mean "people starving to death and scared as fuck?"

i really wonder how much of their own post-partisan healer-uniter bullshit they really believed

Quite a bit, actually. That nonsense with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was the low point imo.

I think his reference there is to our post-war troops being stationed within a pacified society - which is rather different from 'advisors' engaging in daily patrols.

By "remnants of civil society" you mean "people starving to death and scared as fuck?"

Also: civil service, functioning courts, and regional governors with some autonomy. None of this existed under Saddamn.

shakey didn't we shut you up about this "well are still at war in GERMANY lolz" nonsense like three weeks ago? tell me, are we still killing people and being killed in germany?

you are truly lolriffic

Also: civil service, functioning courts, and regional governors with some autonomy. None of this existed under Saddamn.

again, why is a creation of these where none previously existed criteria for a war being over

it's like you guys don't know what the word "war" means

Japan had the remnants of a civil society after the war. Iraq has nothing.

They also had a divine Emperor who on his own authority stopped a scorched-earth defense of his islands.

so you're saying iraq is worse off than japan and germany in 1945, and in need of more reconstruction, but also that obama should pull out immediately?

xposts

i really dunno if the "japan and germany" comparisons are apt. it was a much bigger project than that -- after ww2 basically the whole industrialized world had to be rebuilt and fast. i don't think the scale of iraq compares, or what's happening there. apart from "our" troops being there i don't know what the parallel is supposed to say, you can read it any way you want

I'm saying Obama should stop saying The War is Over when it isn't.

there are huge differences of degree between the number of troops Bush had in Iraq and what they were doing and what the remaining troops that are there now are doing. presence of troops /= a war.

philippines might be a better comparison tbh

*strokes beard*

again Alfred, what do you mean by "war" - cuz I have a feeling it doesn't actually match up with any definition that a military would recognize.

fewer troops engaged in combat in a daily basis /= not a war

Also, Japan is an old nation-state and Germany a long-time nation or pseudo nation at least. Iraq is an amalgam of Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds that was created after WWI.

i think armed americans with the flag on their shoulder engaged in daily violence = war enough.

the drawdown is not nothing but it's not what they're saying it is either

xp heh

Committing more than a few thousand troops to "security" and propping up a fractious government is not peace.

i think armed americans with the flag on their shoulder engaged in daily violence = war enough.

even calling it "daily" is overstating it

Committing more than a few thousand troops to "security" and propping up a fractious government is not peace.

so that makes it "war"? what is this weird black and white world you live in?

what would bring about peace in iraq, alfred?

okay, shit, every OTHER day

I can't even tell what you guys want to happen - you want Iraq to have a civil society, but you also don't want American troops to be present at all? how do you reconcile these two things?

Uh, no. Americans are engaged in combat patrols on a daily basis in Iraq. Some of them got into a firefight this morning.

what would bring about peace in iraq, alfred?

― sexy mfa (history mayne), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:31 PM (16 seconds ago) Bookmark

i'll take a crack -- some kind of national reconciliation among the various ethnic & religious populations, or at least enough of their leaders. the surge was supposed to "provide the breathing space" for this but it hasn't happened.

so that makes it "war"? what is this weird black and white world you live in?

Never been accused of this, but I do believe in clarity, and after eight years of evasions and lies -- and a president who won based in part on his coolness and rationality -- I don't want more.

i give the iraq war an F

i give war in general an F

Also, Japan is an old nation-state and Germany a long-time nation or pseudo nation at least. Iraq is an amalgam of Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds that was created after WWI.

― Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 September 2010 23:29 (2 minutes ago)

have to love those old school foreign office mandarins

i give war in general an F

But, see, it's not war if the president says it isn't.

okay so you guys don't want any troops in Iraq, AT ALL. never mind that 50k is like a near-insignificant number in terms of combat troops, and never mind that they may actually be playing a significant role as peacekeepers in a very fractious and well-armed society, and never mind that Obama isn't the one who fucking put them there in the first place - unilateral troop withdrawal, you really think that would help Iraq right now? really? Or are you cool with us just invading a country, destroying everything, and then splitting with a genteel "seeya later!"

6 mos down the road when the Shi'a have done some ethnic cleansing I'm pretty sure you all would come back and hate on Obama for ditching Iraq etc

I say it's not a war unless there's two armies

bunch of random guys throwing grenades at troops on patrol /= war imho

Germany a long-time nation or pseudo nation at least.

love this factoid. sure, prussia and austria were at war as recently as the late 19th century, and the venerable nation was in face split in two by the war less than 80 years later, but iraq is different, an impossible colonial imposition that could never last. iraq may indeed be fucked as an entity, but the comparison is bs.

shakey otm btw

that's a rather different argument from THE WAR IS OVER, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT

I say it's not a war unless there's two armies

― Dr. Lol Evans (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:37 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

bunch of random guys throwing grenades at troops on patrol /= war imho

This is really, really fucking stupid.

why were prussia and austria at war?

basically afaict 50k troops is currently preventing wide-scale genocide and complete breakdown of the country so yeah, I'm okay with a few combat patrols. the alternative it too nightmarish to even entertain as a real option.

This is really, really fucking stupid.

oh really do tell. I look forward to your enlightened analysis of military history

Most of you said is correct, Shakey, but, sorry, call it "armed operations" or "pissed off bridge game," but it's not The End of the War. Obama's speech was a cynical gesture.

see "Vietnamization"

*most of what you said

I should have started another presidents poll. Still got ten presidents left!

gonna just raise my finger and say to both sides that linguistically lingering on what is war and what is not does little to look at whether iraq situ is better/worse/equivalent.

but iraq is different, an impossible colonial imposition that could never last. iraq may indeed be fucked as an entity

I agree and Germany has had its relgious divides, too, but the Germany that surrendered in '45 was exhausted at every level whereas Iraqis seem to still be very willing to fight each other and the US, albeit at low-levels of intensity.

*breaks john's finger*

you wanna argue about semantics, fine, but let's not pretend that Obama's policy in Iraq has been AS BAD AS (or even a continuation of) Dubya

Obama's handled Iraq better than Dubya did, and better than McCain would have, and frankly I can't envision a better policy than the one he's pursued. I have yet to hear any reasonable policy recommendations from those on this board who are vehemently arguing otherwise.

like, you know, ending the war in iraq is 1000% a rhetorical gesture and we all know that, but its still a far cry from where we were when smuggy got his pretend pilot on in front of the "mission accomplished" banner

xposts ow my pinger

Send members of Al Qaeda in Iraq copies of new Interpol.

oh really do tell. I look forward to your enlightened analysis of military history

The people shooting at American 'non-combat troops' are an organized guerrilla force. That they don't have a traditional, western military structure doesn't mean that we aren't at war or that our troops aren't in combat.

Oen reason I'm not more censorious of Obama's policy in Iraq is that I no longer have a fuckin' clue what to do and I truly doubt that I'm alone in this.

why were prussia and austria at war?

― Chinedu "Edu" Obasi Ogbuke (nakhchivan), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:39 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

oil/daddy issues

we were never at war with the confederacy either

xp There is no good way out of Iraq at this point, but declaring the war over is complete and utter bullshit.

Not officially, Goole, but it was one hell of a facsimile.

The war has been over since '03. It's the occupation we're trying to sort out.

see im still sticking with declaring the war over is a means to a rhetorical end - continued drawdown was going to require an end to combat operdeclations of peacetime strategic whatever declaration at some point, might as well just get it out of the way to remove some ammunition from the hawk freaks, and better to do it sooner rather than later unless you want to deal with it through this whole mid-term election cycle.

I'm pretty cool with the 'bamster, but I'd be up for converting the military into a quasi-peace corps-type organization. like a shake-and-bake civil service/infrastructure A-team with guns. I think that'd be the way to go in any distressed region from iraq to haiti. that's my crazy suggestion.

i mean im pretty sure that obama wasnt expecting peeps to buy it wholesale and throw tickertape parades and neck with sailors on the drydocks for photo ops.

but you did it anyway

Because it means we weren't really 'at war' south of the Vietnam DMZ for a decade.

there were THREE armies (at least) involved in Vietnam fyi

x-posts

this is a bit of a diversion, i don't think obama could reasonably be expected to have disengaged further from iraq

afghanistan, tho...

^^^otm

If you go to one of the discount places you don't have to buy make-out seshions with sailors at wholesale prices.

um, there weren't THREE armies in South Vietnam

And if you're going to say the RVN Army is relevant to determining the status of a war, then the fact we're fighting alongside Iraqi security and military puts that war at TWO armies.

A+++++++++Would elect from again.

I'm increasingly pessimistic about the chances of any success in either conflict and increasingly worried about us being distracted from the rising instability and possibility for conflict in Iran and Pakistan.

Also, unrelated, I'd say there's an 80% chance Nigeria turns into a giant shitstorm by the end of next January.

um, there weren't THREE armies in South Vietnam

Belligerents
Anti-Communist forces:
South Vietnam
United States
South Korea
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Khmer Republic
Kingdom of Laos
Republic of China

Communist forces:
North Vietnam
Viet Cong
Khmer Rouge
Pathet Lao
People's Republic of China
Soviet Union
North Korea

a lot of people seem to be arguing about what "war" is and whether the current situation is what you would choose if you could design the 21st century.

yes, Michael - but I'm talking about actions against the VC throughout South Vietnam.
Obviously we were at war with the People's Army as well.

But the idea that an opposing force needs to be a structured Army for there to be a 'war' is ridiculous.

foreign: b--, not sure i'd have done much differently, but i'm not president. kinda worried about his chops in this area.
domestic: no idea

there need to be two opposing forces. we're currently the only force in Iraq. the people shooting/lobbing grenades/setting off carbombs are a pretty disorganized lot, with different motives and different goals and a generally low-level capacity for inflicting much damage. calling it a war is a vast overstatement. and pretending/implying that it is a war on the scale of the invasion Bush perpetrated is preposterous.

but you know, keep on agitating for ALL US TROOPS TO WITHDRAW NO MATTER WHAT regardless of the dubious morality and fairly pathetic posturing involved

love it when shakey gets his mordy on

Vocabulary: A
Articulation: A
Versatility: A-
Sticking to Themes: B
Innovating Rhythms: no grade

I borrowed those ones from Kool Moe Dee.

Foreign Policy: B
Domestic Policy: B+

I give Obama & the entire current Democratic party an A for bringing me back to the position of near-total nat'l politics apathy that used to be my default setting a long time ago - now I can just vote straight ticket Dem and not really engage any further beyond that, I am liberated from illusion which according to sastra the one who liberates you from your illusions is a messenger from God so like it's all cool by me now and I sweat about stuff less

anyway for me i'd give him a really fragile D in foreign policy, which has less to do with iraq (which has been kind of OK, comparatively) than the escalation of combat in afghanistan, ongoing rendition, targeting american citizens for assassination, blocking lawsuits from people who were tortured and immunizing officials who authorized it, the continued use of military comissions instead of actual courts and the injustices associated with that (with the added bonus of trying a child soldier - great look), continuing to detain people without charge for years in countries all around the world and denying habeas corpus challenges, increasing the use of drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with killing civilians, etc

and about a C in domestic policy, i admired the lawsuit against SB 1050 but wish he'd push for actual immigration reform (meanwhile he's deporting people at a higher rate than bush), appreciate the ideas behind the stimulus and health care reform but think each was far too weak, way too passive on gay rights, i'm tired now

alfred's been otm

So we've had three 2000+ page bills (the 2009 stimulus, health care reform, banking reform) that have alienated supporters, antagonized neutrals, and don't seem to accomplish what they set out to do (avoid double dip, reduce hc costs, prevent another finance crisis). I blame Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel is quitting soon, "after growing tired of the idealism of Barack Obama's inner circle". So maybe we'll get a chance to see what Obama stands for after the midterms.

F. Where is the communism I was promised?

i wish so much ill on rahm emanuel, good riddance if so

?? the cossacks work for the czar. i doubt the nu-rahm will be all that different

well i doubt the next president will be any better either but i can still dislike him?

fair enough

does he really have a shot to be mayor of chicago?

?? the cossacks work for the czar. i doubt the nu-rahm will be all that different

As Vidal said about the influence of the secretary of state/national security adviser on Nixon: a Kissinger is what a burglar uses to jimmy a lock.

B, cause anything less would be breaking ilx-character...if someone asked me irl I might say B-.

have more problems w/ his economic policies than anything else.

honestly i grade obama like a b-/c+, the american people a d+, inside the beltway pundit etc types get an d-, the founding fathers an F for the senate

― max, Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:13 PM (2 hours ago)

also this

to michael white - i was vaguely aware of that but i was hoping for some laboured comparisons between late hapsburg vienna and satrapy iraq to render the comparison absurd

anyway, i think the thread got out of that particular rabbithole

Overall - C, straight C.

long bills that "antagonized neutrals"!! horror!

there are not too many neutrals in america fwiw

i'm kind of meh about neutrals, but i could be convinced either way

anyway for me i'd give him a really fragile D in foreign policy, which has less to do with iraq (which has been kind of OK, comparatively) than the escalation of combat in afghanistan, ongoing rendition, targeting american citizens for assassination, blocking lawsuits from people who were tortured and immunizing officials who authorized it, the continued use of military comissions instead of actual courts and the injustices associated with that (with the added bonus of trying a child soldier - great look), continuing to detain people without charge for years in countries all around the world and denying habeas corpus challenges, increasing the use of drone attacks in countries we aren't at war with killing civilians, etc

― k3vin k., Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:46 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

LOL -- all of that and only a D? I'm scared to ask what you think an 'F' president looks like.

Seriously though, I'd also give him a D. Just the part where he places some of the same cronies responsible for our economic collapse in his cabinet should earn him a D by itself.

That being said, he's better than W.

well i said it was a fragile D, i was feeling generous for some reason

totally a president

LOL -- all of that and only a D? I'm scared to ask what you think an 'F' president looks like.

― musicfanatic, Wednesday, September 15, 2010 9:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

so is the scale pretty much D - F or are there some other recent presidents who u would grade above....

bush ii F
clinton D+
bush i F
reagan F
carter F
ford F
nixon F
lbj D+

deej otm unless he means grading recent prezzes on anything other than a D-F scale is anything other than fair & reasonable

The problem with the arguments relating Obama to his predecessor is the letter scale and curve - just because Dubya was the lowest of Fs, Obama is a C by default. Really, Dubya gets like a 13 and Obama's sitting at a 60. Both Fs but obviously Dubya was worse.

but iraq is different, an impossible colonial imposition that could never last. iraq may indeed be fucked as an entity

I agree and Germany has had its relgious divides, too, but the Germany that surrendered in '45 was exhausted at every level whereas Iraqis seem to still be very willing to fight each other and the US, albeit at low-levels of intensity.

― Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

btw i was being a bit sarcastic in re iraq's 'difference'. it is and it isn't -- all im saying is that i *don't* think iraq is a necessarily impossible construct. after the collapse of the ottoman empire it isn't as if there were an obvious route to take. perhaps the brits/french/league of nations should have simply left the arabs to determine their own borders, idk how that would have panned out, but it brings us to...

Also, Japan is an old nation-state and Germany a long-time nation or pseudo nation at least. Iraq is an amalgam of Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds that was created after WWI.

― Un peu d'Eire, ça fait toujours Dublin (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 September 2010 23:29 (2 minutes ago)

have to love those old school foreign office mandarins

― Chinedu "Edu" Obasi Ogbuke (nakhchivan), Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

gotta hate those mandarins... there is kind of an implied alternative history here, that the mandarins should have partitioned the iraq region along ethnic lines -- am i wrong? this is what those same mandarins, a generation later, did when carving up the raj, and it wasn't a splendid outcome.

nuh i mean i doubt any of us are sufficiently au fait with arab internecine politics to assess every counterfactual, but you gotta love the idea of some ppl in whitehall creating a huge nation state ex nihilo

in the abstract yes

this is what those same mandarins, a generation later, did when carving up the raj, and it wasn't a splendid outcome.

i think calling this "along ethnic lines" gives them too much credit for sensitivity and know how. i've read about the partition and it was basically a dude drawing a line on a map w/o much idea what the line was going through

er, meant to say "what i've read says...", not like i'm an expert in this

I miss these foreign policy mandarins. Where's Averrill Harriman?

Gay Rights: Incomplete
Wife: A+

The problem with the arguments relating Obama to his predecessor is the letter scale and curve - just because Dubya was the lowest of Fs, Obama is a C by default. Really, Dubya gets like a 13 and Obama's sitting at a 60. Both Fs but obviously Dubya was worse.

Milo OTM do you guys not know how grades work? C is for "average" btw

uh not always, what does it matter tho

c is only for average if the average is good enough to merit a c

i admire the toughness of you guyses academic backgrounds but i love the slack of curve grading more, unless some fuckers mess up the curve, but there aren't any like that in living memory w/r/t POTUSes right?

this is what those same mandarins, a generation later, did when carving up the raj, and it wasn't a splendid outcome.

Tbf, they might have plebescited the locals first. That would have prejudiced the interests of war-weary colonial powers, Britain and France however, and the British were very keen on getting Mosul where the then-known oil was and france was willing to allow them that, provided they 'protected' all of Mesopotamia and France was allowed a protectorate over Syria. The treaty of Sèvres and that of Lausanne weren't until '20 and '23, respectively, and everybody was glad to get the war behind them.

He's been an extremely disappointing president so far. Anyone who still acts excited about Obama policy is full of so much shit. Kill the blue dogs.

in order to be disappointed, you'd have to have expectations -- what were they?

For someone who had to enter the cockpit of a plane that was in the midst of a fiery crash, he's managed to pull up the stick far enough to avoid meeting the ground at high speed. Most of the Republican party seems intent on resuming the steepest possible descent at the highest possble speed.

This fucking country.

I'd put Obama in C+ territory. He hasn't really begun to master the weapons he was handed as POTUS and seems determined to keep them shelved. He doesn't relish a fight with the opposition as much as he ought to and prefers to play the cool-headed technocrat. It's easy to see where this is getting him, politically.

He hasn't really begun to master the weapons he was handed as POTUS and seems determined to keep them shelved.

He's aiming his guns at American citizens abroad.

I agree with Aimless' assessment of his political tactics to-date, but I dunno if really being MORE combative would get him much. it might make the Dem base happier, but it would make legislative calculus impossible...? otoh legislative calculus is already basically impossible so he doesn't have a lot to lose, really.

I personally would be happier if he gave the right a few middle fingers though.

I don't know if more combative would help but more outspoken in his own defense mnight help since the primary discourse of criticism one hears from the right (via the media) is batshit nuts.

Can't post this enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIqe4aeublo

lol

i want to start speaking in that style all the time